Case Digest (G.R. No. 28883)
Facts:
Lourdes G. Suntay v. Heroico M. Aguiluz, et al., G.R. No. L-28883, June 03, 1992, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On 9 June 1966, plaintiff-appellant Lourdes G. Suntay and defendants-appellees Heroico M. Aguiluz, et al. executed a Deed of Sale with Real Estate Mortgage conveying Lot 12, Block S‑38, Diliman Estate Subdivision (TCT No. 82529) for P60,000, with P20,000 paid down and the P40,000 balance due "on or before August 6, 1966, without need of any demand." The contract provided a P10,000 liquidated damages clause for failure to pay on time and created a first real estate mortgage as security; it also authorized the vendor‑mortgagee to foreclose (judicially or extrajudicially), to be appointed receiver without bond, and to charge attorney’s fees and other expenses.
Defendants failed to pay the P40,000 by August 6, 1966. On 9 August 1966 defendants filed in the Court of First Instance (Rizal) Civil Case No. Q‑10313, labeled as an action for specific performance with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction; they sought, inter alia, an order compelling plaintiff to deliver the certificate of title and related documents (needed allegedly to obtain an SSS housing loan), enjoining plaintiff from foreclosing the mortgage, and fixing a reasonable period from delivery of the title within which defendants could pay the balance. The court set a hearing for 20 August 1966 and directed the parties to maintain the status quo.
On 18 August 1966, before being served with summons in Q‑10313, plaintiff filed Civil Case No. Q‑10343 in another branch of the same court: an action for recovery of the unpaid balance (P40,000), the P10,000 liquidated damages, foreclosure of the mortgage, appointment as receiver, and related fees. Plaintiff received service in Q‑10313 on 20 August 1966.
On 2 September 1966 defendants moved to dismiss Q‑10343 on grounds of pendency of another action (Q‑10313) and failure to state a cause of action; they later filed a supplemental complaint in Q‑10313. Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting the two suits raised different causes and reliefs (injunction and period to pay in Q‑10313; foreclosure and recovery in Q‑10343). The trial court (Branch IX, Quezon City) on 7 January 1967 dismissed Q‑10343 for pendency of Q‑10313, holding the issues could be litigated in the earlier suit; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 26 September 1967.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, posting appeal bond and filing th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in dismissing Civil Case No. Q-10343 on the ground of pendency (lis pendens) of Civil Case No. Q-10313?
- If dismissal was erroneous, what remedial course should the trial court have taken (dismissal versus consolidation/joint hearing) under ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)